For the Food Materializer there’s no mention of cost. If materialized food/drink cost more, I wouldn’t use it. If it cost less, I would. If the price were no different I’d try it in blinded taste tests and decide.
There’s no mention of quality, either. Maybe we are meant to assume price and quality are equal to traditionally sources food?
But like you, i would want personal experience with the price, quality, and convenience of the food materializer before deciding.
Does it materialize the dishes? If not, does it wash dishes?
Just like Augustus and Claudius were working to restore the Republic, but there was always just one more task fo finish.
I’m assuming the Food Materializer would produce food of equal quality to natural foods. I’d be all over it if it produced completed meals. If not, it would depend on the comparative cost, financial and environmental, of synthesizing foods. I don’t mind grocery shopping, but if I could produce healthy meals at home without cooking, I’d be first in line.
As for drive-thru vs. dine-in, if I’m getting food at a place that has a drive-through option, I’ll typically use it. That’s a little bit of prevarication, though - if we’re picking up dinner, my daughter will almost always go get it for us. (She uses the drive-thru, especially if she’s in the electric car - no idling in line.)
And after some experimentation, it looks like I’m fine with either spelling of drive-through. That surprises me a little; I’d have bet I’d want to use the longer one.
FYI this is the “hamburger menu”:
The older I get, the more of a “foodie” I become. I’d have to be in dire circumstances to get fast food. I’d use the drive through.
The Food Materializer would allow me to totally disrupt the world spice trade.
Dear Iran-knock it off or I’ll trash your saffron trade.
Or I could open a restaurant with zero supply overhead. Prime beef at $.03/lb. You could trash the global market in anything with a machine like that. If I have one, it means that lots of people will have one.
The only times (with a few exceptions) that we do fast food is when we’re on a road trip and we stop for lunch, so I always go in to get the food because I need to use the bathroom. I would prefer to use the drive-through, but I need to go inside. The dog also gets a chance to water the grass.
If not for the fast food place I would soon be pulled over on the shoulder to walk behind some mesquite scrub 
If we’re talking about Star Trek style food replicators, count me in. I can have any food I crave in seconds. No more grocery shopping, meal prep (unless you want to), throwing out expired food, or need for pantry storage space.
The ones in ST can use any available matter and rearrange the atoms into whatever is requested. They never do mention where they get the matter from. Best not to think too hard about the waste disposal systems aboard the Enterprise.
Picard once mentioned that the replicators can’t quite get wine right, and other characters sometimes voice a preference for “real” food. But mostly they seem to do the trick.
I’m sure such a thing would require massive amounts of energy and need regular maintenance. But if we’ve figured out how to rearrange atoms like that, we’ve probably figured out those problems as well.
Of course, as silenus points out, this invention would collapse the agricultural and food processing industries. But I speculate that once the world economy corrected itself, this would be a net benefit for humanity.
My preferred epitaph is “Out of the frying pan and into the fire”
Mrs Magill has already vetoed it.
I went with “Now I know something you don’t” although I’d prefer not to have money wasted on a headstone, plot of land, expensive box, etc.
Can I have "I’m not gone. I’m very slowly turning into a tree, which a cat will come and sit in.'?
PSA no longer operates?
The impression I got was replicator-fare would resemble high end frozen food in our time: Perfectly adequate for every day eating but sometimes something special is wanted. Sisko’s father ran a restaurant in New Orleans.
When I ordered the box I was specifically looking for the least expensive thing.
I did want a stone because although I will lie among relatives none of them will have my surname. They are all from Mom’s side of the family. I wanted my dad’s family to have a toe in. One of my great grandmothers will be on one side, and an aunt on the other.
Sort of—even though PSA hasn’t been around since what, 1986? (For the young’uns, it was Southwest before Southwest was Southwest), ex-PSA folk are still flying, still identify as PSA people, and get together for annual reunions and things. My aunt started flying for PSA in ninety-sixty-mumble, and is still working for the successor airline of the successor airline. Lots of PSA loyalty in San Diego.
US Airways used the name PSA for one of their wholly owned regional subsidiaries, just to keep the trademark active, and I believe they still do regional flights for AA. So there is technically still an airline called PSA, but they have nothing to do with the original PSA.
My sibling! I too skipped right past the heavy handed (minor snark, I didn’t mind, truly) moral questions and straight to how to monetize it!
I still say it looks more like pancakes. 
/= 
My aunt’s headstone says, “Do I have a choice?”
For @Mean_Mr.Mustard’s airport poll I need to add an asterisk to San Jose and Portland. I have flown to those airports, but never on a commercial flight. When I worked for Intel they had a corporate air shuttle that any employee could use to travel between their major facilities. So I flew to SJC and PDX that way. And the flights to Oregon actually landed at the airport in Hillsboro, OR, but on a few occasions it was too foggy to land there so we diverted to PDX. So all the times I flew to PDX were on flights that diverted there; it was never the intended destination.